What's interesting is when you have the tepid "I am a libertarian because of a vague set of antigovernment ideas" types pitted against the orthodox, Rand novel clutching, non-aggression principle types over who am real libertarian.

I find it funny that the defining characteristic for 'libertarians' is minarchism/anarchism. Shouldn't it be advocacy for individual rights? It seems likes it's become a wee bit perverted, considering the root of the word.

Also find it funny that Ayn Rand is so popular, both with the hard libertarians, and with people who make fun of libertarians. Objectivists and Libertarians disagree on a whole bunch of levels. Rand herself called the hippies, and she thought they were more dangerous than the Conservative religious right and Neo-Liberal left.

And then there's so-called 'Libertarians' like, say, Rand Paul or Ron Paul, who are... apparently OK with *STATES* restricting rights, just, you know. Bad when the federal government does it. Because State's Rights._________________"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger

whereas officers in the control group (i.e., those without cameras) "resorted to use [of] force without being physical-threatened" 30 percent of the time.

Felgraf wrote:

And then there's so-called 'Libertarians' like, say, Rand Paul or Ron Paul, who are... apparently OK with *STATES* restricting rights, just, you know. Bad when the federal government does it. Because State's Rights.

I never understood that. "Our rights are being trampled by the Federal government! That's the state's job!". I'm not really competent enough to comment on state rights in the US (Canadian provinces don't seem to have much of an issue with the Federal government, at least compared to the US?), but it's always seemed like a bullshit argument to me. Especially when it seems like most of the legislation that state legislatures try to pass is bullshit, like the (now failed) Arizona 'Religious Freedom' bill. If you're a citizen of the USA, it would seem like your rights should be the same everywhere... why can LGBT marry in New York, but not Florida? Why can you own a particular gun in Texas, but not California? Why does committing a heinous in Idaho result in being executed, whereas the same crime in Alaska gets you prison time? Why can you buy and legally smoke weed in Colorado, but if you're a criminal if you do so in neighboring Wyoming?_________________Whatever happened to the heroes?

Last edited by fritterdonut on Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:54 am; edited 1 time in total

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2416Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:45 am Post subject:

fritterdonut wrote:

Felgraf wrote:

And then there's so-called 'Libertarians' like, say, Rand Paul or Ron Paul, who are... apparently OK with *STATES* restricting rights, just, you know. Bad when the federal government does it. Because State's Rights.

I never understood that. "Our rights are being trampled by the Federal government! That's the state's job!". I'm not really competent enough to comment on state rights in the US (Canadian provinces don't seem to have much of an issue with the Federal government, at least compared to the US?), but it's always seemed like a bullshit argument to me.

The Pauls and other libertarians believe that the federal government was granted a short list of powers in the Constitution, and all others were reserved for the states. That doesn't necessarily mean they would support oppressive laws just because they were enacted by a state or local government.

Quote:

Especially when it seems like most of the legislation that state legislatures try to pass is bullshit, like the (now failed) Arizona 'Religious Freedom' bill.

Well, legislatures simply have to pass laws or else they're considered lazy, right? And if the federal government is handling all the really important stuff (you know, because it's just too important to leave to the states), what else is left but bullshit?

whereas officers in the control group (i.e., those without cameras) "resorted to use [of] force without being physical-threatened" 30 percent of the time.

Felgraf wrote:

And then there's so-called 'Libertarians' like, say, Rand Paul or Ron Paul, who are... apparently OK with *STATES* restricting rights, just, you know. Bad when the federal government does it. Because State's Rights.

I never understood that. "Our rights are being trampled by the Federal government! That's the state's job!". I'm not really competent enough to comment on state rights in the US (Canadian provinces don't seem to have much of an issue with the Federal government, at least compared to the US?), but it's always seemed like a bullshit argument to me. Especially when it seems like most of the legislation that state legislatures try to pass is bullshit, like the (now failed) Arizona 'Religious Freedom' bill. If you're a citizen of the USA, it would seem like your rights should be the same everywhere... why can LGBT marry in New York, but not Florida? Why can you own a particular gun in Texas, but not California? Why does committing a heinous in Idaho result in being executed, whereas the same crime in Alaska gets you prison time? Why can you buy and legally smoke weed in Colorado, but if you're a criminal if you do so in neighboring Wyoming?

We Reserve the Right to Discriminate against whoever we want to...is sadly what a lot of "states rights" issues come to these days. that ol' fedrul gummit may have made us be nice to the darkies, but it can't make us tolerate fags or mooslims or wetbacks or uppity wimmen or...

back in the days when people were trying to get the ERA passed, i had a discussion with a guy who figured it should be done by the states - as i recall, he didn't have an answer when i asked why my rights should differ state by state while his were the same everywhere.

in the ideal, it can be a good thing - states as the laboratories of change, and all that. so, for example, the ACA came out of massachusett's experiment to solve health care problems. other states have come up with other solutions - hawaii managed to cover most of its population with mandated employer-provided health care; other solutions are possible. if states were serious about genuinely trying to provide health care for all of their residents, then leaving it to the states would be a viable solution - and if someone finds a really great way of dealing with it, other states could adopt it. unfortunately, too many states have made it very clear that they want nothing to do with helping the people who most need help, and since the constitution directs the federal government to "provide for the general welfare", it's good for the federal government to do so, via the ACA (imperfect though it may be). repeat for civil rights, education, environmental regulation, etc., etc. those things really do affect us all, and so the federal government has to set at least a floor on how things are.

now, why so many states want to preserve their right to act like shits, rather than showing off what great ideas they have - that, i haven't a clue._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

That doesn't necessarily mean they would support oppressive laws just because they were enacted by a state or local government.

No, no, I'm pretty sure they are OK with opressive laws if passed by the state.

Here's Rand, for instance:

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm_________________"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger

It seems as though Paul doesn't have a problem with civil unions that, from the government's perspective, are legally identical to marriage in regards to taxation, death benefits, etc. I don't find a position like that oppressive. Personally, I think the government should only recognize civil unions regardless of the gender and number of people involved, and if that group can find some religious figure to hold a fancy ceremony for them and call it a wedding and their arrangement a marriage, good for them.

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2416Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:56 am Post subject:

mouse wrote:

We Reserve the Right to Discriminate against whoever we want to...is sadly what a lot of "states rights" issues come to these days. that ol' fedrul gummit may have made us be nice to the darkies, but it can't make us tolerate fags or mooslims or wetbacks or uppity wimmen or...

back in the days when people were trying to get the ERA passed, i had a discussion with a guy who figured it should be done by the states - as i recall, he didn't have an answer when i asked why my rights should differ state by state while his were the same everywhere.

Freedom of association must also include the freedom to choose to not associate, or it's not really a freedom. Recognizing this is not the same as approving of people who choose not to associate based on things like race. I oppose the War on Drugs but that doesn't mean I want to see people strung out on heroin. I merely recognize that some people will use their freedom in ways I might find unwise or distasteful.

rand paul is a vapid code-switching asshole on the subject of gay marriage, personally uninvested in the rights of LGBT people when it conflicts with the American conservative line and definition of 'traditional' marriage, and only giving the appearance of such when he's speaking to a general national audience (before suddenly becoming very concerned again about gay marriage when speaking to conservative audiences)

he even pulled the whole slippery slope to bestiality line on glenn beck, dude is typical goverphobic+traditionalist scum

We Reserve the Right to Discriminate against whoever we want to...is sadly what a lot of "states rights" issues come to these days. that ol' fedrul gummit may have made us be nice to the darkies, but it can't make us tolerate fags or mooslims or wetbacks or uppity wimmen or...

back in the days when people were trying to get the ERA passed, i had a discussion with a guy who figured it should be done by the states - as i recall, he didn't have an answer when i asked why my rights should differ state by state while his were the same everywhere.

Freedom of association must also include the freedom to choose to not associate, or it's not really a freedom. Recognizing this is not the same as approving of people who choose not to associate based on things like race. I oppose the War on Drugs but that doesn't mean I want to see people strung out on heroin. I merely recognize that some people will use their freedom in ways I might find unwise or distasteful.

but associating is different from refusing to recognize that people have (or should have) the same rights as you do, regardless of their race/gender/religion/sexual orientation. refusing to do business with someone on the basis of some characteristic of theirs is not at all the same as refusing to hang out with them. that's not to say you can't select who you do business, if you do that on traits specific to that individual or event - for example, no one would question your right to ban a habitual shoplifter from your store, or your right to do tax preparation for someone who wanted you to illegally hide funds, or your right not to take wedding pictures for someone if you already had the date they wanted booked. but a broad ban on people because they are gay, or female, or have blue eyes - that's wrong. and stupid, from a business perspective.

i'm no theologian, but it seem to me wrong from a religious perspective, as well - at least from my protestant religious education. i seem to recall jesus saying things about not judging lest you be judged and loving the sinner despite hating the sin...seems like people who say their religious scruples prevent them from interacting with people they consider sinners are sorta missing the point._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2416Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:30 pm Post subject:

mouse wrote:

Mindslicer wrote:

mouse wrote:

We Reserve the Right to Discriminate against whoever we want to...is sadly what a lot of "states rights" issues come to these days. that ol' fedrul gummit may have made us be nice to the darkies, but it can't make us tolerate fags or mooslims or wetbacks or uppity wimmen or...

back in the days when people were trying to get the ERA passed, i had a discussion with a guy who figured it should be done by the states - as i recall, he didn't have an answer when i asked why my rights should differ state by state while his were the same everywhere.

Freedom of association must also include the freedom to choose to not associate, or it's not really a freedom. Recognizing this is not the same as approving of people who choose not to associate based on things like race. I oppose the War on Drugs but that doesn't mean I want to see people strung out on heroin. I merely recognize that some people will use their freedom in ways I might find unwise or distasteful.

but associating is different from refusing to recognize that people have (or should have) the same rights as you do, regardless of their race/gender/religion/sexual orientation. refusing to do business with someone on the basis of some characteristic of theirs is not at all the same as refusing to hang out with them. that's not to say you can't select who you do business, if you do that on traits specific to that individual or event - for example, no one would question your right to ban a habitual shoplifter from your store, or your right to do tax preparation for someone who wanted you to illegally hide funds, or your right not to take wedding pictures for someone if you already had the date they wanted booked. but a broad ban on people because they are gay, or female, or have blue eyes - that's wrong. and stupid, from a business perspective.

Libertarians agree that discriminating is stupid from a business perspective -- in fact, they think that doing so is a disadvantage that other nondiscriminating businesses would be able to take advantage of in order to do more business and be more successful.

As far as rights go, libertarians don't believe that anyone has a right to the labor of anyone else, and by extension the products of that labor.

Whether discrimination is consistent with any religion doesn't seem to have any bearing on how libertarians believe governments should handle it.

well, i wasn't making a point about libertarians - i was responding to fritterdonut's post about not understanding people who were advocating everything be left to the states, not the federal government.. you know - the people who say things like health care, pollution control, voting rights, etc., etc., should be left up to the states, not regulated in any way by the federal government.

which i would think would not necessarily be a libertarian point of view, as a state government is still a government._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter